The Good, The Bad, and The Faithful

[varkam]

I've been reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith and, like any good book, it has gotten me thinking. One of the central premises that spans the book is that there is good to be found in religion. Strange that, in a book entitled the end of faith, the Harris concedes that religion does indeed benefit individuals, communities, and societies.

In seeing the argument laid out, I realize that it's a truism that religion does provide certain, tangible benefits to people. I can help to illustrate this notion by relating a personal story of mine. Last Christmas I went to a Catholic mass at the behest of my girlfriend (whom is a practicing Catholic). If you are familiar with anything I've written here over the past months, then you know I am an atheist. Nonetheless, it was a beautiful, moving event. I felt a very strong sense of community and compassion there. At one point I was shaking hands with strangers as we wished peace upon one another. How can that be bad or evil? It's not. In fact, the ideals that underpin the behavior that went on are some of the same ideals that I strive for in my daily life.

More than my own personal experience, however, the actions of deeply religious individuals the world over exemplify some of the things that I liked best about religion when I did believe in God. Things like loving people. Things like giving to those who have not. Things like humility. A couple months back I read a story in my local paper about a faith-based youth group feeding the homeless at a downtown park (interestingly enough, the businesses surrounding the park were trying to get them to stop because they didn't like the homeless hanging around). It's things like that that restore my faith in humanity. My girlfriend was a missionary to Venezuela - helping the poor, the infirm, the uneducated. How is that bad? It's not. It's something I cannot criticize on any level, as I have never given up so much of my own time and life to help people I don't know.

The simple fact is that stories such as those are all over. Religion compels people to help others. Regardless of motivational ethics, doing the right thing is always better than doing the wrong thing. In other words, feeding the homeless to get in good with God is infinitely better than doing otherwise on principle (e.g. the conservative idea of self-sufficiency and ethical egoism).

Here it comes: I'm sure that those of you reading my fawning over the goods that religion provides-while at the same time knowing my own positions when it comes to religion-are waiting for the other shoe to drop. The second part of Harris' premise is that the goods found in religion not only come at a terrible price, but can be found elsewhere. Bam.

The sense of community. The sense of spirituality. The sense of compassion. The compulsion to help others. These can all be attained by various means other than church attendance, adherence to a theological doctrine, or a belief in God. This might not be logistically possible, at least at present. For example, take ethics. Religion has a good justification for why one should be moral (that is, if you accept what the justification is predicated upon) - you will anger God if you are not moral. Secular ethics, largely, has no such ironclad justification for why one should be moral. However, once a coherent science of morality gets off the ground (which may not be within our lifetime), this will become a non-issue.

However, many of the other goods that religion provides can currently be gotten elsewhere. Community? I've been to neighborhood watch meetings where I have experienced such a closeness - bound to others by proximity and shared interests. Spirituality? Even as an atheist and a materialist, there have been numerous experiences in my life that I would describe as "spiritual". Times when I have helped others, though I wish they were more numerous, I have felt a sense of humanity or spirituality. Times when I have heard a beautiful song, or seen a glowing sunset, I have felt a sort of tingling sensation all over my body that I don't really have the words to express. Compassion and the compulsion to help others? Like I said, I am an atheist and a materialist and yet I have experienced these same feelings that many people take religion as a necessary condition for. What about simply by virtue of our shared humanity? One of my favorite quotes is by H. Jackson Brown, Jr.: "Remember that everyone you meet loves something, is afraid of something, and has lost something". Simply by virtue of recognizing that, in others, moves me to compassion for them.

If you grant me that the goods in religion can be found elsewhere (that's a big if) then what are the costs, historically and currently, that are paid? You would have to be a true ideologue to hold that there are none. The biggies aside (such as the Inquisition), I think if you look at the historical record, you will find that religion has also been primarily responsible for insurmountable suffering and death. This continues to this very day. The rationale for the suicide attacks wrought on us by members of the Islamic faith was, in fact, Islam itself (if there was no paradise, there would be no justification for those individuals who committed those acts). There is also an argument to be made that the invocation of the civil-religious Christian doctrine was the principle catalyst for initial public support of the war in Iraq (you know, modern day Babylon and all). But it's not just war, oh no. Our theocratic prohibition against pleasure is annually responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands and the continued suffering of millions more via AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases - not to mention the economic cost. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman has become a lightning rod for hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and theologically motivated violence against homosexuals. The strict limits placed on reproductive autonomy, aside from brining unwanted children into the world, is currently preventing critical research from being done on stem cells that, in all probability, hold a large part of the puzzle in the quest for the cure for cancer (among other currently incurable diseases). You can lay all this squarely at the feet of religion and theological normative ethical theories. That's just the current state of affairs. Go back several hundred years, and you will find a similar plot line with different characters.

My point here is not to denigrate anyone's faith, nor is it to point out how evil religion is. As I stated and explained, upon examination, I do earnestly believe that there is good within the hallowed halls of religion. But there is a downside - a big downside - that many either fail to recognize, mis-attribute it to other causes (e.g. Well they weren't true Christians/Muslims/Jews), or actively deny it altogether.

If you take your purpose to be one of remaining comfortable and self-assured in your beliefs, then you can (and will) safely forget everything that you have just read. I don't imagine anything that I have to say will give you cause for thought or pause. However, if you take your purpose to be alleviating suffering in others, abroad and at home, then you should demand nothing less than an open and honest discussion of these matters.

[hunter]

1. The quick answer is that religions are human institutions...

... and therefore imperfect, which is probably a variation of your "...Well they weren't true Christians/Muslims/Jews..." statement.

Human institutions, atheist or theist, can do great harm.

Institutions that are officially atheist have historically done a great deal of harm..

The right wing is always quick to bring up the atheism of Russian and Chinese Communism, and I suppose I'm guilty of that here, simply by mentioning it.

I've got more to say about your essay, but no time... :(

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[bloom]

2. .....

This is the same old same old.

You can take the bad of atheists (Which you didn't look at) just like you can take the bad of religions. And you are just criticizing what is part of non-liberal, hostile (generally thought of as right-wing, patriarchal) religions - so it doesn't make sense to blame all religions for what some of them do (same as with atheists). Try looking for something with liberal Quakers or Unitarian Universalists to rant about.


And you also said,

"However, once a coherent science of morality gets off the ground (which may not be within our lifetime), this will become a non-issue."


If there gets to being such a thing - that makes a difference in people's lives - like you say - THEN maybe that will do it for people. In the meantime - until there is something else - I don't think that it's good or reasonable to expect people to abandon their liberal religions (as Sam Harris suggests). To expect people to abandon religions that promote hate and hostility - sure. I think that is totally reasonable. Everyone could abandon promotions of hate and hostility.

Religious people do not have a corner on hate and hostility while non-religious people are free from that. Some religions (some liberal ones, for instance) are mostly about encouraging peace. Sam Harris does not sound like he is promoting peace with his anti-religious rants.

[varkam]

3. Part of that is missing the point, I think

The point is not who is more moral - atheists or theists. Undoubtedly, atheists can also behave in an immoral fashion. Hell, I know I've done some things in my life that I'm not proud of. Theists are also capable of some very good acts, as well. Like I mentioned in the OP, my girlfriend was a missionary to Venezuela.

The point is, however, there is currently killing being done and policies being enacted that further human suffering whose primary justification is that of religion and dogma. If you think that's a good thing, then perhaps I've misread you. But I think you would agree that any suffering, regardless of it's causes, is a bad thing. I hope that when it comes to religion that you're not changing your mind.

[bloom]

13. No - I think you are missing my point

I'm not concerned about which group is more moral or not - but I think that people should stop bashing ALL religion by defining religion and it's problems by what right-wing religious people do instead of distinguishing it from what liberally religious people (who can include atheists, btw) do.

It would be like saying that all Americans are Republicans - even though we are not.

[varkam]

19. Ah

But I don't think the problems that stem from religion are due to the way that conservatives use it. After all, didn't Dean just recently come out against homosexual marriage?

True, the conservatives are more certain in their beliefs - and this leads them to be more verbose regarding their convictions - but the neurosis extends to the other side of the aisle as well.

[bloom]

21. Some liberal religious groups

are more liberal than others.

And Dean was probably doing something that he thought was politically expedient. Sort of like Hillary having a fund raiser with FOX.


Again - I challenge you to find fault with liberal Quakerism or Unitarian Universalism. They support the same things that most of us do - and are at least as active - if not more so. And would probably have the same criticisms that you do as well. And they welcome atheists.

The Quaker group nearby "married" a homosexual couple - even though it wasn't a legal marriage - a few years back. And the UU church has a lesbian preacher.


I can see where you would be fed up with politicians pandering to Christians - I am too - but there are neurosis in people regardless of religion or not. I think the fight is really about the pandering/the privileges/the faith-based-gov't-money/and expected entitlements - than about what someone believes or not or whether they form groups around general ideas.

[varkam]

24. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm ignorant on certain matters..

such as the faith / scripture of Quakers or UUers. I will say, however, that according to another post here in the R/T section, there are approximately 800,000 UUers. Compare that with 2.1 billion Xtians.

I don't hold, either, that all religious groups are inherently evil. I take it, as a rule of thumb, that the less and less dogmatic the scriptures and traditions of a certain group becomes, the less and less prone it is to "pay the costs", so to speak. The more open the adherents to a certain religion are to change and revision of their faith and metaphysical beliefs they hold, likewise.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of world religions have an extremely dogmatic core (e.g. God must exist, Muhammad was the prophet of Allah, etc. - these are unchallengeable premises from which all else flows). It is that dogma, and the unfounded beliefs that are founded upon that dogma, that I take to be the downside of religion. If you remove the dogma, however, then there's really not much left of religion.

At least, that's how I'm thinking about it.

[varkam]

25. And another thing....

Something that I forgot to add was that yes, conservatives (or at least the current iteration of them) use religion as a tool to their own means. However, they would not be in a position of power if they did not appeal to the religious predilections of some 44% of our countrymen.

[bloom]

30. To the extent that

Any religious group goes along with the pandering, etc. - I would say that you have a point about that.

But I also think that sometimes it is the liberal religious people who can be the best antidote to the Conservative nuts. And I don't see the esp. liberal religious people as being on opposing sides to the non-religious people.

To anti-religious people like Sam Harris - he is on opposite sides of all religious people no matter what they think or what they do - because he wants to be - seems to me.

[varkam]

34. Have you read his book?

If not, then I might suggest to you that you read it before you come to any sweeping generalizations regarding his position. Just saying. I was expecting a Bertrand Russell type of smackdown, but I was surprised - sometimes pleasantly so.

[Zhade]

20. "liberally religious people (who can include atheists, btw) do."

Okay, you've confused me. Great point about not defining all believers based on one sectarian rightwing interpretation of the belief system they share (I agree, that's just inaccurate), but what the heck does the sentence I quoted from mean?

It sure reads like you're saying atheists are religious, and thus atheism is a religion. You say you're an atheist, so you're not religious, so...er, what DOES that sentence mean, exactly?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Very good post, Varkam

And a thought-provoker indeed.

If you know me, you know my answer will not rest in logic. You say you can get the things you experienced at the Mass (and I attend many religious services of many faiths, in my role as teacher..I am invited to Bar Mitzvahs, teacher appreciation nights, etc. and ALWAYS feel moved) in other venues. But the thing is, I personally can't. I can feel community at work. I can feel useful at the shelter. I feel satisfied with philosophical discussions here. But at church, (I'm Episcopalian) I get it all. (and doughnuts at coffee hour) at one time, but something intangible that I can't quite describe and can't find anywhere else. I call it joy. I read recently Einstein describe something similar and I don't remember what he called it. (And I'm not real sure he approved.) But for me, it is unique to faith.

I am not going to deny there have been horrid things done in the name of gods. And maybe I'm just fortunate that my denomination is neither repressive or oppressive. But for me it has been a good thing, this thing called faith. Perhaps I am being selfish to only consider my personal benefit, but that is really all I have to offer, I guess.


T-Grannie

[salvorhardin]

7. TGrannie, do you think that maybe atheists like varkam or myself

Are incapable of experiencing what you experience in celebration of your religion? That what we describe as feelings of spirituality such as varkam described aren't the same feelings you experience at church? That would seem unlikely to me because there are a great many atheists who used to believe and yet report experiences in relation to naturalistic phenomenon consistent with experiences described as spiritual by believers.

So if that's the case that atheists and believers experience roughly the same thing when they describe something as spiritual then what do you suppose has changed in the psychology of the atheist that they experience it not in relation to religion but in relation to nature instead?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. Excellent question

and I do have an answer. Whether it is correct, I have no idea!

I think all humans look for this feeling. Some of us are fortunate enough to find it nearby, through our faith. Some find it through the universe and nature.

I am certain (as I can be w/out testing my hypothesis) that atheists and agnostics use different parts of their brains predominantly. Maybe it is a left/right issue but I think that atheists are what I call vigilant thinkers who allow very few thoughts to be processed that do not meet their standards of logic and order. Because, let's face it. If you deal only with facts and figures and what you see, the whole faith thing is pretty silly. I readily admit that. Where atheists and I appear to split off is that I go down the road where I look for other signs and feelings. Now I comfort myself by saying that this really does not separate us so much as it does categorize us. I think that if there were NOT atheists and agnostics we would have killed each other a long time ago trying to prove whose god is the right god.

[salvorhardin]

14. Nah

I'm sure if the world were only atheists we would have as many wars and atrocities.

I don't think atheism is by necessity a more enlightened viewpoint. In fact I will happily point you to a couple of morons who also happen to be atheists (and are not DU members).

But you're right. Although I do think it is important to understand the differences in psychology (and maybe neurology) between atheists and theists I don't think those differences need not mean we're unable to come together and understand each other, and hopefully work to build a better world.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. For a Christian

I am unusually devoted to evolution as an explanation for behavior. There has to be a species survival reason for both religion AND for atheism, because they both exist in strong numbers. (maybe not in the US, but world-wide.)

[salvorhardin]

17. You might be right

And now that I think about it, that's a perspective I don't think Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett has considered. They both consider naturalistic explanations of religion from an evolutionary perspective but I don't think either has considered that theists and atheists might be symbiotic. If that were true, then would the relationship theists to atheists be parasitic, commensalisitc, mutualistic, or amensalistic?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. symbiotic?

[salvorhardin]

23. What you were implying I thought

Was a symbiotic relationship between two different subspecies of human. I think from an evolutionary biological perspective that's wrong, unless in the future we find out that the wiring upstairs is significantly different between believer and non-believer that we could classify them as subspecies -- and I sincerely doubt we will. Besides, as I mentioned above, there are enough people who move between categories to cast doubt on that idea.

However, we often speak of memes (ideas) in evolutionary terms, comparing them to viruses. I wonder though about evolultion of worldviews (comparable to macro-evolution in biology) and if worldviews based around supernatural explanations and worldviews based around naturalistic explanations might not be symbiotic.

[godhatesrepublicans]

5. Anything that brings people together in mutual love is a good thing...

Anything that brings people together in mutual love is a good thing, be it religion or a batch of cookies.


Not so long ago, I had a spiritual awakening.

I’d never really been a “true believer” in my life. I’d
been raised by parents more interested in living their
own lives than being involved in mine. I grew up
without having any particular set of convictions
drilled into me, so I was pretty much set free to drift
as the wind carried me.

I had never been drawn to any organized religion,
since when I was a teenager back in the Reagan era,
organized religion was self-destructing. It was the
time when Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker became
famous for using their TV ministry as a personal
piggy bank. Jerry Falwell had gained fame for
turning Christianity away from its roots and towards
being all about enforcing sexual morality. And the
first parts of the Catholic Church’s pedophilia
scandal started popping up in the news.

The Reagan Administration’s habit of cloaking itself
in an air of religious piety also steered me away from
Christianity. Anyone who wants to dispute me on
the issue of the Reagan bunch’s Christianity are
referred to the city of Philadelphia, Mississippi
where he announced his candidacy for the
Presidency in 1980. Previously, the most important
political event in Philadelphia had been the deaths of
civil rights workers, Andrew Goodman, Michael
Schwerner and James Cheney in 1964. Reagan
appeared to talk in those well-known racist code
words about “state’s rights.” This was no mistake or
misunderstanding. Reagan was clearly saying he
would carry on a racist agenda from Day One.

So for twenty years, I didn’t have much interest in
Christianity of any denomination, or any other faith
for that matter. I saw Faith as “the enemy,” in fact.

But in 2004, I finally actually started studying
Christian theology when a good friend lost his mind.
For some people, they go insane thinking that
Martians are inserting computer chips into their
dental work. Others become obsessed with blaming
Freemasons for stealing their mail. Fred became
convinced that a conspiracy of Gay Pagans and
Lesbian Witches were working to stamp out
Christianity in general and Fred in particular.

Appeals to Fred’s reason had no effect. He was
unshakable in his belief that Gay Pagans were
plotting against him. I pointed out that there were
about 2 billion Christians in the world and the
Lesbian Witches must number less than a couple
hundred thousand world -wide. “They’re recruiting
my wife,” was his reply.

“I don’t think that letting Gays marry will mean that
you will HAVE to marry Gay,” I’d tell him reasonably.
Yes, he assured me, it would.

For the first time in decades I started reading
Scripture and various people’s thoughts, trying in
vain to find a way to argue Fred back to Reality.

I never did, but I found myself developing Faith.
Finally reading Christ’s message myself made an
impact. And the one thing I noticed was that Jesus’
main target for his anger was… the religious leaders
of his day.

The Son of God spent more of his time rebuking
those who claimed to be God’s representatives on
Earth than he did speaking on any other subject.

So as the popular bumper sticker goes, “What
Would Jesus Do?”

Well, I thought about it, prayed on it and slept on it.
I realized Jesus would probably challenge the
leaders of our society. He’d target the group that
controls all three branches of our Federal
Government. He’d go after the President and all his
appointees. He’d speak out against the group that
fills 222 seats in the House of Representatives and
55 in the Senate, and fills five out of nine seats in
the Supreme Court.

Jesus would preach about the group that controls
the Governor’s mansions in 28 states, and which is
funded by the largest corporations in the business
world and supported in the pulpit by the majority of
churches in this country.

He’d preach against James Dobson for telling his
followers to “focus on the Family” instead of
focusing on humanity. He’d rebuke Tim LaHaye for
writing how the world should go to Hell instead of on
how to live as if the World were Heaven. He’d tell
Jerry Falwell that suggesting we “kill them all in the
Lord’s name” isn’t what he meant when He said
“Love your enemies.”

He’d certainly have a LOT to say about the group
that dares commonly refer to itself as “God’s Own
Party.”

I feel that Jesus would join me in declaring that GOD
HATES REPUBLICANS! God is Love, but I think the
Bible is pretty clear on how The Lord feels about
false prophets who do evil and speak evil and claim
to do His will.

[Proud_Democratt]

8. It seems to me that you're here promoting a website....

that states very clearly God is discriminitive. How did you come to this conclusion that God hates Republicans?

[Proud_Democratt]

9. Does God hate? I wasn't aware he needs a representative.

[godhatesrepublicans]

10. GOD HATES REPUBLICANS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO.

I received a very perceptive note from a reader recently that made a very
valid point. Inspired by my web site’s main theme that God hates
Republicans, he wrote in part;

“Spiritual teachers (Christ was a man... a teacher...)
DEMONSTRATE anger and stricture at the false prophets, the
scribes and Pharisees as a SYMBOLIC LESSON to those who
would learn the teachings. But the truth of a great teacher's
message seems to be, "all is love."

“All is well.

“All is love.”

"Hating Republicans" which I do... is good when it is symbolic...
meaning "identifying the darkness and shadow of blocked truth that
republicans cling to for false power"

“But actually hating... is toxic to the hater.” By the author of http:
//www.myspace.com/reregulation

He’s right of course, we’re told by Jesus to love our enemies.

Contrary to the common perception, that doesn’t mean we’re supposed
to just surrender and let our enemies run riot. But it does mean we’re
supposed to treat them as human beings also created in the image of
God. While I know that the architects of America’s misguided pro-torture
stance will burn in Hell for their sins against their fellow human beings, I’d
never condone water-boarding them as a punishment. (See http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding for a concise account of what C.I.A and
U.S military interrogators are doing in our names.)

And while Christ and the Prophets commanded us to name the face of
Evil, we were also admonished to never assume that we’re always
good. No human being has the right to assume they are always in the
right. Pride of this magnitude is a sin and it is perhaps the greatest
current sin of all Republicans. (I suggest http://foi.missouri.
edu/voicesdissent/sinofpride.html for a fuller discussion of this topic.)

However God, YHVH, The Great Maker, “The Big Electron” or however
you wish to think of The Deity is, by definition, free from sin. I’m rather
fond of this passage from Proverbs, which I’ll reprint in a couple of
translations.

Proverbs 6:16-19 (King James Version)

six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto
him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in
running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord
among brethren.

Proverbs 6:16-19 (New International Version)

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to
him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush
into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up
dissension among brothers.


It’s always important to remember that in The Old Testament, the various
Prophets and authors most often spoke in the negative; what NOT to do.
Jesus spoke of what we were to DO. So let us look at this passage both
in the negative sense of what the Republicans are doing that is wrong,
and then turn it around into positives to see what we SHOULD be trying
to do.

“A proud look” can describe many negative things. For example there is
the proud look of someone sneering at the misfortune of others. There is
the look of a person judging another human being as being unworthy of
being treated as an equal. There is also the way of seeing the world and
everything in it as something to be owned rather than shared. In short
any time a mere mortal looks down his nose at another, or seeing the
world with an utter lack of humility. All of these are traits of modern
conservative Republicans. It’s also notable that in a list of the things God
hates, the first one mentioned is pride.

This sin doesn’t just describe the attitudes and behaviors of elected
Republicans, or their media cheerleaders. Every Republican voter and
supporter is guilty of the sin of Pride, of looking at the world with a lack of
humility. (The rest of us aren’t free from this sin either, it’s just that the
Republican world view is based upon looking at the world as if they are
superior based on their politics.)

The sin of pride is being committed by every driver with a “KEEP
WORKING! MILLIONS ON WELFARE DEPEND ON YOU!” bumper
sticker on their SUV. Every beat up pick up truck with a “NUKE THEIR
ASS TAKE THEIR GAS” sticker is driven by eyes clouds by Pride.

“A lying tongue” is certainly one of the most recognizable traits of the
Republican Party. Our “leaders” seem to lie reflexively, even when the
truth would serve them better. They hide the truth whenever possible,
they speak in lies and denounce those who speak the truth. I can’t take
the time to list their various assaults on Truth. I suggest anyone who
doubts me to check my links page for sources of the proof they may
need, or read THE BOOK ON BUSH by Eric Alterman and Mark Green.
Or just go to http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

“Hands that shed innocent blood” doesn’t just apply to those who get
their hands dirty with harming and slaying the blameless. It describes the
hands of those who support those who shed innocent blood as well.
It applies to those who give their silent consent to the hundreds of
thousands of dead casually dismissed as “collateral damage” in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

It applies to every voter who doesn’t care about the many poor children
who die of preventable causes every day in America because of the lack
of health care, as long as their political leaders promise tax cuts and to
“keep the government off your backs.”

“A heart that devises wicked schemes” certainly covers the Neo-
conservative planners who decided to lie to the American people about
Saddam Hussein’s non-existent connection to Al Qaeda in order to send
us into a disastrous and pointless war. It also covers the minds behind
the ‘SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH” scam that fooled 51% of
the American public into thinking a decorated war hero was a coward.

“Feet that be swift in running to mischief” describes many of the darker
chapters of recent Republican politics. The career of Karl Rove in the
making of the G.W. Bush presidency alone makes for an interesting
cross-section of this sort of sin God hates. I suggest http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Karl_Rove as a good place to start.

But it also covers those who make decisions too quickly to evaluate if the
plan itself is good or evil. The Iraqi War was rushed into place by people
who assumed we’d “be greeted as liberators” and democracy would
naturally flower in the Middle East as soon as the bombs stopped falling.
If the leaders who drove us off of the cliff had taken the time to listen to
those of us screaming to pull over, many lives would have been saved,
not to mention billions of dollars saved.

“A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among
brethren.” That pretty much sums up the entire political strategy of the
Republicans ever since the 1968 Nixon campaign. Ever since 1968, they
have won elections by turning Americans against each other. Their
relying on getting their “base” to vote against their economic interests by
lying about social issues is well documented.

So how can we turn these things God hates into a list of positive virtues
we could strive for, to overturn these dark monsters that squat over the
country tearing at our soft underbelly? How can we drive these demons
out, and exorcise the body politic?

We have to look at the world through eyes of humility.

We can’t think we have all the answers for everybody on the planet.
That’s what God hates, remember? The good news is that we can be
comfortable knowing that NOBODY ELSE has all the answers either.
That is the essential logic behind democracy; if enough people are part
of the decision making process, maybe we’ll all come up with a better
plan than any one of us could on their own. We have to save the
country, but still leave people the freedom to think and decide for
themselves.

We have to be completely honest and forthright at all times.

I know, it’s tempting to start screaming things in public like “Rupert
Murdoch eats babies! Dick Cheney is a cyborg! Ann Coulter dances
with Satan by moonlight!” But unless we can find photographs to prove
it, we can’t say it. We can’t defeat liars with more lies. The good news is
we have Truth on our side. A few decent muckraking reporters and a
wide spread way of spreading the truth could save us all. So don’t even
make up a fact over dinner with your right wing brother-in-law. Rely on
truth, it’s all we need.

We must remain non-violent and anti-war.

Even though we face murderers and thieves, we can’t use their weapons
against them. Even if you aren’t driven by God as I am, always
remember this. Mahatma Gandhi and his followers defeated the British
Empire without firing a shot. The Irish Republican Army did guerrilla
warfare better than anybody, and never got Northern Ireland back on
their own. In the long run, bloodshed doesn’t help you in politics. Ignore
those who preach violent revolt, they are tools of the enemy.

Keep our strategy positive.

If I had the money, I’d steal the Salvation Army’s method of giving the
poor and homeless food and shelter for the night in exchange for
preaching to them about the glories of The New Deal. If you want to
convince people you can help them, show them by HELPING THEM.
We have to find ways to show that the ideals of compassion, equality and
justice just plain WORK BETTER than hatred, oligarchy and rule by
force.

Plan carefully, but keep moving forward.

Always remember, the struggle for pulling humanity up to where it should
be is a marathon, not a sprint. There are no short cuts.
Find ways to bring the world back together.

Turning brother against brother and sister against sister is the tactic of
the enemy. Instead find ways to get everyone to pull together.

After all, we’re all on the same planet; we’re kind of stuck together. Talk
to people in their own language in ways they can relate to, but always
with the goal of explaining how we’re all connected. Even Republicans
can rejoin the rest of us, once they renounce their political affiliations.

Usually I try to end these text sermons with a Biblical quote, but this time I’
d like to close with a passage Bill Hicks closed his shows with sometimes.

“I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you
feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and
defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with
this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world
-- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being
excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever
in peace. Thank you very much. You've been great, I hope you enjoyed
it.”

[Proud_Democratt]

11. I dislike pushy, "God mind reader", Christians!!!!!!!!

You're using God to justify your hatred of the Republican Party...........and that's just as bad as the Pat Robertsons, Falwells, and Dobsons.


Just another religious ploy....trying to convert more with a popular phrase.

Like I always say...."people under the influence of Christ are destined to execute the Armageddon plan".

[Evoman]

6. How religion is good or bad, while interesting, is more or less

irrelevant to me.

What bothers me is the anti-intellectualism and irrationality of religion. Not the people who practice is, necessarily BUT the faith ITSELF. For me, there is nothing to learn in religion...its just a dead end. You can learn how jesus did this, or muhammed did that, or what god may want or what god does not want...but its all speculation with no ties to reality. Some people tell me to take what jesus says literally, and ignore the obvious falsehood of Noahs ark. Others tell me Noahs ark was real, and what jesus says shouldnt be taken literally. So instead of listening to either, I just toss it away. There is so much falsehoods and contradictions in ALL the books associated with religion that in the end, the whole thing strikes me as speculative, irrelevant bullshit.

So someone may be able to convince me of the benefits of religion, or the disasters that religion has caused, but you can't convince me thats its TRUE...especially if you keep trying to shove 2000 year old bs books in my face.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Well, I certainly wouldn't try

But I'd also dispute the idea that religion must be anti-intellectual. It's simply not a black and white, binary proposition: religion is not opposed to thought. Faith is not the opposite of intellect.

For many believers, religion provides some of the greatest intellectual fodder... big questions, big answers to be found. Doubt, that questioning, searching, wondering intellectual thing, is not the opposite of faith but its leading edge. Those who have never approached their faith with their whole selves, including their intellect, have not really approached it. Their understanding is necessarily limited, and that's sort of sad.

Now if that sort of inquiry doesn't float your boat, I've no problem with that. If the idea of a higher power leaves you sort of flat, that's fine with me. I understand that, and as T. Grannie says, maybe some of us are just wired differently.

Have religious organizations been used by bad people for bad ends? Oh yes. Still happening, far too often. That says a great deal more about the people than faith though.

[okasha]

22. Excellently said!

:thumbsup:

[Evoman]

26. See, I really don't get it

Religion gives you answers before you even start asking question. What questions does it inspire? How is the universe made? God did it. How did man come to be? God did it. I'm not saying religious people don't ask important questions...as humans, they have a need to now, a need to ask questions like all of us do. But what important questions does religion answer? And moreover, if it can't answer the smallest questions, why do you expect it to be able to answer the big ones correctly? No, its more than that...every question so far it has tried to answer has been plain wrong!

What are Human beings made of....oops, not made of clay.

How were women made.....oops, not made of ribs.

The stars....oops, not a canopy but actually balls of hydrogen gas.

Disease....oops, not demons, but bacteria and viruses.

Like I said...if it can't truthfully answer small, easy questions like "What is disease", the how the hell do you expect it to be right when your asking bigger question. The bible has no validity. Religion is anti-intellectual...it gives you easy answers to really hard questions. It makes you say..I have the answer, when what you really should be saying is "I don't know".

"Doubt, that questioning, searching, wondering intellectual thing, is not the opposite of faith but its leading edge."

You could of fooled me. I thought most religious people thought doubt was a bad thing. I'm really glad that you don't, however.


Again, I don't want to be misunderstood here. Religious PEOPLE don't have to be anti-intellectuals. Obviously, people like Mendel have made great contributions and many of our greatest learners are religious. But that doesn't stop me from saying that the most religious books, and religions themselves, seem to have no real answers and no real validity. I'd really like to understand what you get from it.

What does your religion teach you personally? How does it help your intellect, how does it aid learning? What does it do apart from making you feel good?

[varkam]

27. Good point.

Again, I don't want to be misunderstood here. Religious PEOPLE don't have to be anti-intellectuals. Obviously, people like Mendel have made great contributions and many of our greatest learners are religious.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around here. When certain individuals criticize religion in general, it's supporting texts, or religious institutions, many seem to react as though the criticism is directed at the individual. For instance, to say that Christian normative ethical theories fail as being moral is not the same as saying Christians fail as being moral.

This is a point that needs to be shouted loud and often around here.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. True

Although I'd go a bit further and say that not all Christian ethical theories fail as being moral, and in fact, many do not. I'd fault the role of humanity, politics and poor or intentionally incorrect interpretations in that.

The bottom line of "love your neighbor" is about, rock-bottom, as good as it gets.

[varkam]

31. It's not my purpose to get into this here..

but, at least as far as I've been able to ascertain, once you look at the motivation for doing good within the J-C traditions, the normative ethical theories fail as actually being "ethical". Believers, generally speaking, do good because they wish to please God and get into heaven. They avoid doing bad things as they want to avoid angering God and being sent to hell. It's not that the motivation is to do the right thing because it is right, it's simply the pursuit of reward or the avoidance of punishment.

In other words, if I found a wallet, I can return it because either a) it is the right thing to do or b) I might get a monetary reward. The second motivation is clearly inferior to the first, however the right action is still performed. Doing good, for whatever motivation, is always superior to doing bad. However, motivation does count. In that sense, in my view, J-C normative ethical theories fail miserably.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. That's incorrect, and grossly over-simplified

and although I cannot dispute that it's the way a number of people understand things, it's not a mature take on Christianity by any means.

We are told to love God and love our neighbors. That's the gist of it in one sentence.

Any of the rest is better understood as parable and allegory -- teaching tools.

We're given no guarantees, and we're called to our good behavior b/c it's right, b/c it's the way to love God and one another. Not for a get out of hell free sticker.

[varkam]

33. But the question you fail to ask is why.

Why should you love God and love your neighbors? Why not hate both of them? Why is loving them the "right" way? That's the point - the motivation for love.

I suppose the ten commandments then, are just parable, I take it.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. Well, they're fairly effective as guidelines, no?

But they're also interpreted differently depending on who you ask.

Are you saying loving your neigbhor is somehow morally suspect if you also see that as loving God? We just may to agree to disagree on that one.

Let me ask you: what motivates an atheist to be kind to others?

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Well, I think part of the problem might be differing ideas of

"religion".

I'm not a dogmatic person, and my church doesn't require me to hew to some: here's all the facts, believe them sort of line. In fact, we encourage individual thought, interpretation...

I'd never go with "well the bible says so"! It doesn't, first of all, not necessarily -- interpretation is everything, and the document is human, and therefore quite fallible.

What does religion teach me? To ask questions about humanity, our treatment of one another, how best to exist together. Questions about the nature of our existence and the nature of God. Of our relationship with God. Why are we here? What does it mean?

More theologically based questions, too: what is the real meaning of the resurrection? What is the message we are really supposed to take from it? The simple, Sunday school variety answers no longer fit the bill: I don't think Jesus died to "save" me. I don't think anyone need profess faith in Christ as Jesus to be "saved". In fact, I don't believe in any sort of hell, if that means a place where some of us go while others don't.

I'm a bit of a heretic even within my rather liberal denomination. And that's just fine with them. For me, questions of our purpose and our relations with others are pretty central to learning.

And, lol, I wouldn't exactly say it all makes me feel good. More like thoughtful. Sometimes confused. Sometimes frustrated. But for me, I sense a truth there, waiting to be more fully discovered. It doesn't allow me to give up the questioning. It doesn't allow easy answers, or doctrinal certainty. It makes me the odd woman out sometimes. Sure as heck makes teaching my kids about religion tough sometimes, lol! Not always easy to explain what I think to a small child, you know?

I think the questions that religion leads me to are the same questions that people all over the world and all through time have wrestled with. For me, my religion gives me a framework, a starting point, interesting ideas to chew on. It's not the end-point of an inquiry. Which is absolutely not to say that you might not ask the same questions outside of a religious context. Or that we might not come to some consensus on many of them! Nor is it to say that what is right for me is right for the next person.

Bottom line (and I do apologize for the novel here... didn't mean to go on so), is that I'm something of a universalist. I think there's far more that unites us than divides us. I also think there are some universal "truths" out there, and each of us is free to reach them (or not) in his or her own way. I can't quantify what I believe to be true via scientific methods. But that doesn't trouble me in the least. Truth is something broader and more diffuse than the known, tangible world for me.

And of course, as I said, YMMV and that's cool by me.

[varkam]

35. I don't know about 'universal truths'...

but I agree on the point that there is more we have in common than we think (or than we like to think, sometimes).

I do think the further you get away from a literal or even traditional reading of the bible, the further you get from the downside of dogma, faith, and religion. The bible, unfortunately doesn't come with a reader's guide. Through becoming educated about history, context, and the social frameworks when the varying pieces were written, I think one can get closer to understanding the actual message - not just one's own narrow (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) interpretation of it.

But even then, you can't be sure if you're right or if your interpretations are correct. I, for one, think that the world would be a much happier place if more people would subscribe to a non-literal or non-traditional interpretation of the bible. Maybe the author of Leviticus was fucked up - definitely so if it were written today. Deuteronomy? Please.

The big problem comes when people become certain about their respective scripture. If even one of the men who took part in the September 11th attacks doubted the certainty of paradise, perhaps those three thousand some odd people would still be alive and our government wouldn't have been hijacked by neo-conservatives.

As an afterthought, I do think you fell into the trap - namely the trap of responding, as a member of the various J-C traditions, to a criticism leveled at the system as if it were leveled at you as an individual. Just reading the scriptures, there is no other reason to be good than to please God. However, people who don't make that their end all guide, can have different motivations. At least that's how I see it.